The U.S. needs to invest in its people

There are only two nations in the world that don't provide paid maternity leave, either directly from the government or through a mandate on employers.

Douglas Rooks

There are only two nations in the world that don't provide paid maternity leave, either directly from the government or through a mandate on employers.

One of them is Papua New Guinea. The other is — you guessed it — the United States.

Twenty years ago, people made a big deal when Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. It allows people to take time off to care for a sick or elderly family member — or to stay home with an infant in her or his first weeks of life. The big deal was that employees could no longer be fired for missing a week of work.

The leave, of course, is unpaid. Mothers (and fathers) who can't afford to take a month off, and these days that's most of them, probably won't get much benefit.

Why are we exceptional in this way? Why don't we recognize that allowing parents to care for newborn children is the best way for them to get a good start in life?

Just 12 percent of U.S. employees are offered paid maternity leave. Most work for large companies and have well above average incomes. The chance a mom who works full time in retail or as a health care technician can get paid leave is near zero.

If you say we couldn't afford it, you also have to ask why everyone else — including countries at the bottom of the income pyramid — manages to do it.

Politicians since Ronald Reagan have talked about a "safety net" for citizens, but they're careful never to define what it might mean. Lately, it's pretty much less of everything, with more cuts coming.

This is a useful lens through which to view the still-raging battle over whether Maine will accept nearly $1 billion in federal money to provide health care to 70,000 people over the next three years. All the suggested "alternatives" would work less well, cost more and reach fewer people. Why do we need an alternative when the federal government is finally ready to provide something close to universal health care?

The last three decades of our national life have seen a steady decline in public investment and a corresponding unleashing of the private sector. It was supposed to provide prosperity for all, but it hasn't worked out.

Overall, economic growth has been far slower and the main beneficiaries have been a tiny group of extremely wealthy people.

In the last presidential campaign, we heard often about "job creators" of great wealth, but that's not true, either. What creates jobs is consumer demand for goods and services — it's 70 percent of the economy — and when the middle class share of the pie declines, it can't create the demand that prompts businesses to expand.

We're also told, whether the subject is health care, renewable energy or environmental protection, that the market will take care of it. It's the answer to every policy question: Just keep government out.

But the rules government sets are what creates markets. If we deregulate banks so they no longer have to provide healthy loan reserves, they produce a market for subprime mortgages, lending to people who probably never had a hope of repaying them — with the disastrous consequences we saw in 2008 and after.

When government mandates that cars become more fuel-efficient, manufacturers compete to produce economical models without sacrificing performance. I don't know anyone who complains about getting better gas mileage.

But beyond regulation, government needs to provide certain services — roads, schools and health care — that have never been provided anywhere with exclusively private markets.

Our problem at all levels is that public investment has fallen drastically. Taxes always go down, never up. There's never any money for new programs, however vital.

So when government finally makes a big investment offer that will clearly benefit everyone — through better public health and less spending on preventable diseases — why say no?

Increasingly, it appears that the public is getting this, even if politicians aren't. A Pew Foundation poll just out found that an impressive 2-1 majority believes, as is in fact the case, that income inequality is increasing. And an even bigger majority would like government to do something about it.

A few are. Newly elected New York City Mayor Bill DiBlasio wants higher income taxes from the top brackets to pay for universal pre-K education. It's an overwhelmingly popular notion — so popular Gov. Andrew Cuomo is trying to volunteer state money for the initiative.

One guesses this won't top Gov. Paul LePage's agenda, but other candidates might pick up the theme. After 30 years of emptying the public square, perhaps we're finally seeing a turnaround.

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 29 years. He can be reached at drooks@tds.net.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service